As for fraud, my sense of this discussion is that people aren't charging
that the non-evaluative diploma represents a deliberate attempt to deceive
the outside world. And even if people on this list are making that charge,
I don't think it's the case. Neither the SVS nor the Fairhaven diplomas are
readily understood by that outside world; both are easily misinterpreted
and both require explanation. So be it. I think the root problem is that
*any* diploma is not only going to trigger various connotations, but is
inherently arbitrary. This is why the Sudbury purist might shy away from
anything resembling a diploma process. If you have a diploma based solely
on the amount of time spent at school (e.g., 3 years as a student in good
standing), then what great sage determines the magical time it takes a
student, at minimum, to get what the school has to offer? And where is it
written that simply being a student in good standing is sufficient for
that?
I guess what I'm getting at is that any diploma process has to rest on
intuition. My intuition tells me it prefers an SVS/AVS diploma process over
the Fairhaven process. I know the argument that being able to make it
through a few years at a Sudbury school isn't easy, in the sense that
issues will be encountered and growth will occur. But it's also difficult
to make it through [X] years in a traditional school without doing violence
either to others or to oneself. I just don't like the idea of "time served"
as the standard for a diploma, whether that time is spent in jail or in
freedom. For me, and I think many on this list, the concept of diploma
carries with it a great deal of weight (whatever we specifically take it to
mean), and I don't perceive an equivalent sense of gravity in a diploma
which is a token of one's attendance and JC records. It also seems
standardized -- one simple, concrete measure for all -- which itself goes
against the Sudbury grain.
As for those who argue that any sort of diploma is inconsistent with the
Sudbury philosophy...yes, a diploma may be abitrary and evaluative, but I
would ask whether the philosophical underpinning of democracy doesn't
justify having a diploma process if a majority of the school wants one. It
is an individual's choice whether to pursue a diploma, and whether to help
determine what the diploma process will be. In my view, having no diploma
process is just as standardized an approach as an attendance-based process
(the individual option for GEDs notwithstanding). The more choices for
students the better, I say.
Bruce
p.s. I must say, I blush at the honor of having my name included in the
subject line. Wowee....
--------------------------------
"Cherish your best hopes as a faith, and abide
by them in action."
-- Margaret Fuller
===========
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
majordomo@sudval.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
"email@host.dom" with the email address that you subscribed under:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model email@host.dom
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
"dsm-digest"
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 19:39:48 EST